Monday, April 21, 2008

Developer David Walentas has won permission to finish his Atlantic Avenue apartment building with"possible" rooftop cabanas, according to the Brooklyn Paper," despite an ongoing controversy that the cabanas break the 50-foot height limit in historic Cobble Hill.

McBrooklyn got this photo of the boxlike rooftop structures (yellow) at the end of March, before black shrouding was placed over them.

“Everything has been approved by the Department of Buildings and the Landmarks Preservation Commission,” Jed Walentas told the Brooklyn Paper, and both city agencies confirmed Walentas’s opinion.

Back in March, City Council Member Bill de Blasio’s office said that if the cabanas were not in the design approved by LPC and the Council, they would have to come down, according to the Brooklyn Eagle.

The historic district law allows "mechanical bulkheads" only -- not residential -- above the 50-foot limit. So what gives?

10:21 What you could have also mentioned, is that these are the same developers who thought that they were/are 10 feet better (at least) than the rest of the neighborhood.

Thats right, the historic district's limits that have kept both the heights and c-hill as charming and valaued as they are were just a sugesstions in these people minds, and they tried to break it. And maybe with these cabanas/mechanicals they have.

Good test case for the Billy-de B. a lot of lip service against run amok devlopemnt lately as he runs for the next rung, butwhen a clear height limit is broken, and in his own district lets see what the man actually does/says/ (cando) against the deep pockets that may or may not support his next step. (he's probably in PA as I write this) (keep the news coming McBrooklyn! This is a live one!)

"So what gives?" McBrooklyn, I believe you to be wiser than you let on. But i'm in for another day -hook, line and holy cabanas.

The answer is: sexymoneypower trumps all, and believe that the recent 10ft slap back to mortal (read:the rest of us) standards so infuriated the DUmb-o lords, that they'll take this one to the mat and wait these pansy elected officials, building not-so-inspectors, and tired community not so actives out and get their way. (which is whatever they want: 51ft,61 ft 71 ft --"it has all been approved."

mcBrooklyn, Were the cabanas in the approved design? And has anyone seen the signed copy? What a clerk says on the phone in confusion and on deadline, and what a developer wishes for and believes is his right are not the same things as a rock solid approved design that has cabanas on roof going over 50 ft height.

Thank you 449--Will have to dumpster dive to actually see these plans as approved and what sort of rroftop shenangcabanas they approved or what they thought they were approving. As I recall, the Mechanicals section gets real small in the fine print, and a comma here or a "whatever is needed" there and all of sudden cabanas were in fact approved: letter not the spirit.

Perhaps they're holding the opening of trader joes hostage until this cabanagate gets resolved. The two Trees calculate that the greens and the foodies are more powerful then the 50-footers. Just thinking outloud.